Teaching in Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Classrooms in Canada: Self-Efficacy Perceptions of Internationally Educated Teachers

(1)

TESL CANADA JOURNAL/REVUE TESL DU CANADA 48 VOLUME 36, ISSUE 2, 2019 PP. 48–67

Teaching in Linguistically and Culturally

Diverse Classrooms in Canada:

Self-Eﬃ

cacy Perceptions of Internationally

Educated Teachers

Mithila Vidwans & Farahnaz Faez

Set in Ontario, which is the most diverse province in Canada, this study (N = 76) examined Internationally Educated Teachers’ (IETs) and non-Internationally Educated Teachers’ (non-IETs) sense of self-effi cacy for providing linguistically and culturally inclusive pedagogy in K-12 classrooms. Theories of self-effi cacy and culturally responsive pedagogy frame this research. This study employed a quantitative 40-item survey to compare teachers’ self-effi cacy perceptions of general pedagogy and culturally responsive pedagogy. Results show that while both groups were equally consistent in their self-effi cacy perceptions for providing general pedagogy, IETs reported signifi cantly higher self-effi cacy for providing culturally responsive pedagogy.

Réalisée en Ontario, la province la plus diversifi ée du Canada, auprès d’ensei-gnantes et enseignants formés à l’étranger (IETs) et d’enseid’ensei-gnantes et enseignants formés ailleurs qu’à l’étranger (non-IETs), ce e étude rend compte de la mesure dans laquelle ces professeurs se sentent personnellement capables d’off rir effi cace-ment une pédagogie linguistiquecace-ment et culturellecace-ment inclusive dans les salles de classe de la maternelle à la douzième année. Éclairée par des recherches dans les domaines de l’auto-effi cacité et de la pédagogie adaptée aux réalités culturelles, ce e enquête quantitative basée sur la réponse à 40 questions a permis de com-parer les perceptions d’auto-effi cacité des enseignantes et enseignants à l’égard de la pédagogie en général et de la pédagogie adaptée aux réalités culturelles. Les résultats de l’enquête indiquent que, alors que les sentiments d’auto-effi cacité des membres des deux groupes étaient uniformes quant à la pédagogie en général, les enseignantes et enseignants formés à l’étranger se sentent considérablement plus à même d’off rir une pédagogie adaptée aux réalités culturelles.

: English Language Learners (ELLs), Internationally Educated Teachers (IETs), self-eﬃ cacy, linguistic and cultural diversity, culturally responsive pedagogy

Canadian classrooms are witnessing increasing linguistic and cultural diver-sity with more than half of the students speaking a ﬁ rst language (L1) other than English in a growing number of schools (Statistics Canada, 2017). Statis-tics Canada (2017) projects that by 2031, almost half of Canadians over the age of 15 will be foreign-born or will have a foreign-born parent. Previous studies

(2)

have reported that in spite of the large number of English Language Learners (ELLs)1_{in kindergarten through Grade 12 (K-12) classrooms in North} Amer-ica, teachers lack suﬃ cient preparation to support these students (Ladson-Billings, 2000; Rushton, 2000; Webster & Valeo, 2011).

Equally important to note is that in spite of the increasing diversity in Canadian classrooms, the teaching profession has remained relatively homogeneous. More than two decades ago, Bascia (1996) expressed concerns that the “typical” teacher in Canada is a Canadian-born female who is of Caucasian race, belongs to the middle class, is heterosexual, able-bodied, and of Christian faith. More than two decades later, the situation remains unchanged (e.g., Janzen & Cranston, 2016). In a 2016 report aimed at discuss-ing challenges of implementdiscuss-ing a diversity admissions policy at a Canadian university, Janzen and Cranston (2016) described that in spite of the increas-ing diversity in our communities, White female teachers make up more than 80% of the teaching force. Internationally Educated Teachers (IETs)2_{, deﬁ ned} by the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) as teachers who have received their teaching certiﬁ cation in a country outside of Canada, have been reported to have higher unemployment and underemployment rates compared with other regulated professions for immigrants (Zietsma, 2010; Marom, 2017). Schmidt (2010b, 2016) contended that systemic discrimination is a major impediment to the integration of IETs in the teaching workforce. Discrimina-tion of IETs has been reported in both teacher educaDiscrimina-tion programs (Cho, 2011; Schmidt & Gagné, 2015) and in schools (Schmidt, 2010a). Yet, a range of argu-ments has been made in support of diversifying the Canadian teaching force (e.g., Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Diversifying the teaching force is an important endeavour in realizing equitable representation (Ryan, Pollock, & Antonelli, 2009), delivering relevant pedagogy (Solomon, 1997; Sleeter & Milner, 2011), establishing relationships with students of diverse backgrounds (Villegas & Lucas, 2004), and, eventually, be er serving the needs of students from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds (Santoro, 2008).

Given the diversity in the student and teacher population in Canada, it is paramount to understand how teachers provide linguistically and cultur-ally relevant pedagogy in their classrooms. One way to understand teachers’ instructional ability is to examine their self-effi cacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997). In layman’s terms, self-effi cacy is the confi dence teachers have in their ability to perform specifi c tasks in the classroom. The study reported in this article is part of a larger study that looks at Ontario teachers’ self-effi cacy perceptions for teaching in diverse classrooms. Teachers in the larger study were grouped according to the grade level they taught, their linguistic background, as well as years of teaching experience. As a starting point, the purpose of this study was to explore the self-effi cacy perceptions of IETs and non-IETs for teaching in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms in the province of Ontario. Specifi cally, the study compared teachers’ perceptions of self-effi cacy for

(3)

50 MITHILA VIDWANS & FARAHNAZ FAEZ

general pedagogy with their sense of self-eﬃ cacy for culturally responsive pedagogy.

Theoretical Framework

Theories of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2000) frame this research. The concept of self-effi cacy is based in Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory and defi ned as the “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations” (Bandura, 1995, p. 2). Simply put, skills and knowledge are insuffi cient to complete an action eff ectively, and one’s con-fi dence regarding their performance also has an impact on the success or failure of the action. Effi cacy beliefs are important and have an impact on how individuals think, act, and feel. Not only do self-effi cacy beliefs aff ect one’s cognitive processes, but they are also linked to behaviour (Bandura, 1977). Effi cacy beliefs “contribute signifi cantly to human motivation and a ain-ments” (Bandura, 1995, p. 3). Self-effi cacy beliefs aff ect one’s choice of activi-ties and coping eff orts in the face of obstacles. Bandura (1997) argued that the stronger one’s self-effi cacy perceptions, the more active the eff orts. Teacher effi cacy is an individual’s judgement of their teaching ability (Bandura, 1977, 1997) and has signifi cant educational implications (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Teacher self-effi cacy has been linked to notable edu-cational outcomes such as student achievement (Akbari & Allvar, 2010; Ash-ton & Webb, 1986; Ross, 1992; Swanson, 2014), teacher a rition (Swanson, 2010, 2014), and teachers’ sense of preparedness to teach in inclusive class-rooms (Sharma, Loreman, & Forlin, 2012). Therefore, teachers’ self-effi cacy beliefs have tremendous implications for understanding pedagogical out-comes, specifi c to this study, which involves teaching students from diverse backgrounds.

Canadian classrooms have witnessed students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds for decades now. However, our class-rooms, instructional methods, and the curricular content have been designed with those students who share the same homogeneous mainstream cultural environment in mind (Coelho, 2012). Consequently, students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds who have experiences diﬀ erent from the mainstream students may be at a disadvantage. Coelho (2012) suggested that it is essential for teachers to understand that some students are learning the language of instruction and have knowledge that is drawn from other geographical regions of the world. Hence, it is paramount that pedagogical methods be relevant to culturally and linguistically diverse students so that they are given equal opportunities for success.

Culturally responsive pedagogy, in essence, addresses issues related to teaching in diverse classrooms, “using the cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of ethnically diverse students as conduits

(4)

for teaching them more eff ectively” (Gay, 2002, p. 106). Gay (2000) stated that when knowledge and skills are embedded within the lived experiences of students, their academic achievement improves. Five competencies of culturally responsive pedagogy are outlined. First, it is important that the knowledge base of a teacher goes beyond content knowledge and includes students’ value systems, traditions, and learning styles. The second com-petency involves converting the acquired knowledge base into culturally responsive curricular designs and methods of instruction. Third, it is important to create classroom environments that are conducive to learning for students from diverse backgrounds. Fourth, teachers must acknowledge that styles of communication across cultures are diff erent from the typical student-teacher dialogue in mainstream North American classrooms. The fi fth competency involves the actual delivery of instruction in diverse class-rooms in which teachers connect the prior knowledge of their students with new knowledge by building a bridge between what the students already know and what they will learn.

The theories of self-effi cacy and culturally responsive pedagogy dovetail coherently in framing this study. ELLs’ cultures and languages need to be validated in the curriculum and instruction for them to succeed (Gay, 2000). Self-effi cacy perceptions of teachers have an impact on ELLs’ academic suc-cess, and culturally responsive pedagogy is essential to ensuring that ELLs will succeed academically. As such, this study tries to specifi cally under-stand teachers’ self-effi cacy perceptions in relation to providing culturally responsive pedagogy. Hence, the two theories are compatible to the extent that they both strive to ensure the academic success of ELLs and have guided this study at every stage.

Literature Review

Multiple terms have been used throughout the literature to refer to IETs including “immigrant teachers,” “overseas trained teachers,” “foreign trained teachers,” “foreign teachers,” and “internationally trained teachers” (Walsh, Brigham, & Wang, 2011). The OCT (2016) uses the term IET to refer to teach-ers with teacher education qualiﬁ cations gained outside Ontario, and the term is used more broadly in this study to refer to a teacher who has studied, lived, or worked outside Canada for an extended period of time.

In addition to the call for a more diverse teaching force, researchers have also outlined the advantages of including IETs in the Canadian educational system, which beneﬁ ts not only ELLs but all students. IETs help to interrupt the mainstream discourse that has existed for decades, in part, because of a homogeneous teaching force. In addition, other roles that IETs have under-taken in classrooms today include those of advocates and agents of change in ELL education (e.g., Beynon, Ilieva, & Dichupa, 2004). They also show a great level of sensitivity and empathy toward ELLs (e.g., Faez, 2012a) and

(5)

enrich the dialogue on immigrant integration (e.g., Phillion, 2003). IETs are also great cultural mediators and equity developers in the educational system (e.g., Block, 2012).

Despite the benefi ts of diversifying the teaching pool, IETs still face a number of issues, including discrimination in the workplace (e.g., Schmidt, 2010b), a devaluation of their diversity (e.g., Cho, 2011), and high rates of unemployment and underemployment (e.g., Deters, 2009). After extensive interviews with IETs and faculty members as well as classroom observations, Marom (2017) highlighted the structural barriers that stand in the way of the recertifi cation process of IETs in British Columbia. Issues related to lan-guage including profi ciency and accent are the biggest hindrance to employ-ment. The IETs interviewed in the study point out how certain accents are accepted (e.g., British) but not others (e.g., Eastern European). The author also observed that “there was often an unspoken connection between lan-guage—especially accent—racism, and discrimination based on skin colour and ethnicity” (Marom, 2017, p. 171). In addition to language-related barriers, there were also structural barriers including the lack of suffi cient informa-tion regarding the recertifi cainforma-tion process as well as the lack of recogniinforma-tion of teaching credentials from the IETs’ home countries.

The prejudiced lens through which IETs’ linguistic abilities are viewed is also evident in the literature. Broadly speaking, within the context of English as a second/foreign language (ESL/EFL), IETs belonging to expanding circle countries3 (countries in which English has no offi cial status, such as China and Iran) and sometimes even IETs from outer circle countries (countries previously colonized by Great Britain, such as India and Nigeria, in which English has an offi cial status) are referred to as non-native English speak-ing teachers (NNESTs). Even though the native and non-native dichotomy is highly contested (e.g., Faez, 2011) and is shown to perpetuate racial and employment discrimination (e.g., Faez, 2012b; Kamhi-Stein, 2018; Selvi, 2018), these labels continue to be used, mainly for a lack of a be er substitute term. Marom (2017) emphasizes that “this distinction between ‘native’ English speakers and ‘others’ reproduces linguistic hierarchies rather than promoting inclusivity and diversity” (p. 171). The potential strengths and shortcomings of NESTs and NNESTs are well documented in the literature (e.g., Moussu, 2018a, 2018b). Even though there are reports that some Internationally Edu-cated Teacher Candidates (IETCs) may require support in their oral and writ-ten language skills (e.g., Faez, 2010), it is important to realize that there is a wide variation of expertise, language profi ciency, and skills that IETs bring to the profession. Similar to non-IETs, there are vast within-group diff erences for IETs and the continued usage of the native/non-native dichotomy contrib-utes even further to the discrimination and devaluation of IETs. Hence, it is important that teachers be evaluated based on their pedagogical skills rather than their native or non-native English speaker status.

(6)

Self-Eﬃ

cacy for Providing General Pedagogy and Culturally

Responsive Pedagogy

In essence, the concept of self-effi cacy suggests that skills and knowledge are not enough to complete an action eff ectively and that one’s judgement regarding whether they will perform an act eff ectively also has an impact on it (Bandura, 1995). According to Bandura, self-effi cacy beliefs infl uence individuals’ thoughts, feelings, actions, behaviour, level of perseverance, as well as confl ict-resolution techniques. Bandura (1995) states that “people’s level of motivation, aff ective states, and actions are based more on what they believe than on what is objectively the case” (p. 2). In addition, self-effi cacy beliefs of individuals diff er depending on the context and the task. The stron-ger the teachers’ self-effi cacy perceptions, the stronger the eff orts that they make in their teaching and in the goals they set for themselves (Woolfolk Hoy & Spero, 2005). Also, many have pointed out that teachers’ self-effi cacy is positively correlated with student achievement and academic success (e.g., Bandura, 1995; Bolshakova, Johnson, & Czerniak, 2011). Mojavezi and Tamiz (2012) looked at the relationship between teachers’ self-effi cacy and student motivation and achievement in Iran, and they reported that teachers with high levels of self-effi cacy had a positive impact on student motivation.

Students belonging to diverse backgrounds do not always fi nd the curriculum and instruction relevant to their experience (Siwatu, 2011b; Gay, 2000). As a result, it is essential that education be embedded within the lived experiences of the students so that all students have equal opportunities to gain academic success (Gay, 2000). Hence, it is important to examine teach-ers’ perceptions about teaching practices that are generally benefi cial to all students, defi ned as general pedagogy, as well as those that are specifi cally geared toward ELLs, referred to as culturally responsive pedagogy. Previous research on teachers’ self-effi cacy perceptions of providing culturally respon-sive pedagogy has been dependent on teachers’ level of experience and the classroom context (e.g., Siwatu, 2011a). Research examining the relationship between self-effi cacy and the linguistic background of the teachers specifi -cally is sparse. This study a empts to fi ll a gap by examining the self-effi cacy perceptions of Ontario teachers including IETs for teaching in diverse class-rooms. In this investigation, teachers’ self-effi cacy was examined in relation to their general pedagogy, which entails implementing pedagogical practices geared toward all students, and also culturally responsive pedagogy, which are pedagogical practices geared toward all students but, particularly, toward ELLs.

(7)

Method

This study explored the self-eﬃ cacy perceptions of Ontario’s teachers to teach in diverse classrooms using a quantitative survey. The following research questions directed this study:

Research Question 1: What are the self-eﬃ cacy perceptions of

Ontario’s teachers regarding teaching in linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms? How do IETs’ self-eﬃ cacy perceptions compare with non-IETs’?

Research Question 2: What are the self-eﬃ cacy perceptions of IETs and non-IETs on general and culturally responsive pedagogy practices?

Research Question 3: How do the self-eﬃ cacy perceptions of IETs compare with non-IETs on general and culturally responsive pedagogy practices?

Participants

The participants in this study comprised teachers across elementary, in-termediate, and secondary (K-12) schools in Ontario. Data were collected by providing a le er of information to school boards to invite teachers to participate in the study. A background profi le questionnaire, which included questions about participant’s gender, age range, country of birth, K-12 edu-cation, university eduedu-cation, and dominant language, was distributed to the participants prior to the study. Of the 76 participants, 49 (64.5%) were female, and 27 (35.5%) were male. A total of 46 (60.5%) were born, raised, and edu-cated in Canada and also received their Bachelor of Education degree from a Canadian university. Five (6.6%) were born in Canada and received most of their education in Canada but had also received some education including their teaching degree outside Canada, although they were at the time of the study qualifi ed to teach in Canada. In total, 12 (15.8%) were born elsewhere but came to Canada at a young age and received their education, including teacher certifi cation, in Canada. Of the remaining 13 teachers, 10 (13.2%) were born, raised, and educated outside Canada and had a Bachelor of Education degree from an institution outside Canada. However, regardless of which country had granted them their teaching degree, they had completed the teacher certifi cation process in Ontario, which qualifi ed them to teach in K-12 classrooms. Three (4%) participants did not have a teaching certifi cation from an international university but had completed the majority of their education prior to arriving in Canada. As a result of this variation in demographic data, two categories were identifi ed, labelled as IETs (n = 13) and non-IETs (n = 63), from the total number of participants (N = 76).

(8)

The Survey Instrument

The study reported in this article is part of a larger research project that employed mixed methods. The fi ndings reported here are only based on the quantitative data. The survey instrument used in this research is based on Siwatu’s (2007) Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Effi cacy (CRTSE) scale. The survey seeks to measure the participants’ perceptions of self-effi cacy on a series of 40 items dealing with pedagogical practices in diverse classrooms. Teachers were asked to rate how they judged their capabilities (perceived self-effi cacy) on the 40 teaching practices on a scale of 0 (no feelings of

self-eﬃ cacy) to 10 (high feelings of self-eﬃ cacy). The survey items were tailored to

suit the teaching and learning context in Ontario schools and the goals of this study. No changes were made to 25 items, and they remained as they were in the original survey. Two items were combined into one. Six items were deleted because they either did not address the goals of the study directly or were redundant. Contextual details were added to eight items to make them fi t the Ontario context. Six items dealing with linguistically relevant peda-gogy were added based on previous research looking at the role of language in subject-specifi c domains such as science and mathematics. However, even after the changes were made, the survey remained at 40 items in length. The fi nal version of the survey is shown in the appendix.

Siwatu (2007) reported the validation procedures and internal consistency reliability of the survey. The changes that were made to the survey, in turn, may have changed the internal consistency reliability of the original version of the survey. Hence, it was essential to ensure that the adapted version of the survey was also reliable. To examine the correlation between all of the variables, Cronbach’s alpha was implemented. Muijs (2011) stated that a high Cronbach’s alpha indicates high levels of internal consistency and suggested that a measure above .7 was considered acceptable for research purposes. The internal reliability for the original CRTSE survey was .96 (Siwatu, 2007). After making appropriate modiﬁ cations to the original survey, the Cronbach’s alpha of the adapted survey was still high at .95—thus, establishing a strong internal consistency reliability of the instrument.

Data Analysis Procedures

Siwatu’s (2007) CRTSE survey was chosen because of its variation in survey items dealing with general pedagogy as well as culturally responsive pedagogy. Culturally responsive pedagogy takes ELLs’ cultural and linguis-tic backgrounds into account in terms of the curriculum, instruction, and teaching practices while general pedagogy involves teaching practices that are considered to be eff ective for all students, regardless of their cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Based on these defi nitions, we classifi ed the survey items into two categories: general or culturally responsive. In addition to the authors, two doctoral students and one faculty member also categorized the

(9)

survey items to check the level of agreement between our categorization. There was agreement on all but two of the survey items (items 11 and 14) among the coders compared with our individual categorization. After a dis-cussion, all agreed that item 14 was culturally responsive, and item 11 was general pedagogy. After establishing an agreement on all of the survey items, the ﬁ nal categorization included 18 items belonging to the general pedagogy category and 22 to the culturally responsive pedagogy category.

First, we calculated the means and standard deviations of the teachers’ scores on the 40 items of the survey. We calculated the overall means and standard deviations for each of the participants. We also calculated the over-all self-effi cacy of IETs and non-IETs as a collective to compare the groups through independent samples t tests. Second, we conducted an additional t test to see if there were statistically signifi cant diff erences between general pedagogical practices and culturally responsive pedagogical practices. The results from our analysis are presented in the next section.

Findings

The fi ndings from the survey data are presented corresponding to the three research questions: First, we report on fi ndings related to the overall self-effi cacy perceptions of the participant teachers and provide a comparison between IETs’ and non-IETs’ overall self-effi cacy perceptions to teach in diverse classrooms in Ontario. Second, we provide a comparison of both groups’ (IETs’ and non-IETs’) self-effi cacy perceptions on items of general as opposed to culturally responsive pedagogy. Third, we present a compari-son between IETs’ and non-IETs’ overall self-effi cacy perceptions on items of general pedagogy and culturally responsive pedagogy. In keeping with Siwatu’s (2007) survey, we have kept the original 0–10 scale for this adapted survey as well.

The fi rst research question dealt with the overall self-effi cacy percep-tions of Ontario’s teachers regarding teaching in linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms and a comparison between IETs’ and non-IETs’ self-effi cacy.

Overall Self-Eﬃ

cacy and Comparison of IETs versus Non-IETs

Of the total number of participants (N = 76), 13 were IETs and 63 were Non-IETs. The overall mean (for all participants on the entire survey) was 7.20 (SD = 1.07). The overall mean of the IETs (n = 13) was 7.80 (SD = 0.76) and Non-IETs (n = 63) was 7.08 (SD = 1.30). Levene’s test for unequal variances was conducted, and it showed that the variances were not signifi cantly dif-ferent, F(74) = 3.785, p = .056. The results of the t test, t(74) = 1.921, p = .056, showed that there were no statistically signifi cant diff erences between the subgroups. Hence, there were no statistically signifi cant diff erences between

(10)

IETs’ and non-IETs’ overall self-eﬃ cacy perceptions for teaching in linguisti-cally and culturally diverse classrooms.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics of IETs’ and Non-IETs’ Self-Efﬁ cacy on the Overall Survey

IET or Non-IET N M SD Std. Error M

IET 13 7.80 0.76 0.21

Non-IET 63 7.08 1.30 0.16

Note. IET = Internationally Educated Teachers; non-IET = non-Internationally Educated Teachers.

The second research question dealt with the self-eﬃ cacy perceptions of IETs and non-IETs on general and culturally responsive pedagogy items.

IETs: General Pedagogy versus Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

Of the total number of participants (N = 76), the number of IETs was 13. Their overall mean on general pedagogy items (18), which include teaching prac-tices that are considered to be eff ective for all students, regardless of their cultural and linguistic backgrounds, was 8.25 (SD = 0.45) and on culturally responsive pedagogy items (22), which are those that take ELLs’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds into account in terms of the curriculum, instruction, and teaching practices, was 7.43 (SD = 0.65). Levene’s test for unequal vari-ances found that the varivari-ances were not signifi cantly diff erent, F(38) = 3.142,

p = .084. The result of the t test showed that there is a statistically signiﬁ cant

diff erence between the IETs’ self-effi cacy perceptions on items of general ped-agogy as opposed to culturally responsive pedped-agogy, t(38) = 4.555, p = 0. IETs reported higher confi dence in their ability to implement general pedagogy as opposed to culturally responsive pedagogy.

Table 2

IETs’ Self-Efﬁ cacy on General Pedagogy (GP) and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) Items

GP or CRP N M SD Std. Error M

GP 18 8.25 0.45 0.11

CRP 22 7.43 0.65 0.14

Note. IET = Internationally Educated Teachers.

Non-IETs: General Pedagogy versus Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

Of the total number of participants (N = 76), the number of non-IETs was 63. Their overall mean on general pedagogy items (18) was 8.03 (SD = 0.63) and on culturally responsive pedagogy items was 6.30 (SD = 0.89). Levene’s test for unequal variances found that the variances were not signiﬁ cantly diﬀ er-ent, F(38) = 1.532, p = .223. The result of the t test showed that there is a

(11)

statis-58 MITHILA VIDWANS & FARAHNAZ FAEZ

tically signifi cant diff erence between the non-IETs’ self-effi cacy perceptions on items of general pedagogy as opposed to culturally responsive pedagogy,

t(38) = 6.886, p = 0. Non-IETs also reported higher conﬁ dence in their ability to

implement general pedagogy as opposed to culturally responsive pedagogy.

Table 3

Non-IETs’ Self-Efﬁ cacy on General Pedagogy (GP) and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) Items

GP or CRP N M SD Std. Error M

GP 18 8.03 0.63 0.15

CRP 22 6.30 0.89 0.19

Note. Non-IET = non-Internationally Educated Teachers.

The third research question dealt with a comparison of self-eﬃ cacy per-ceptions of the IETs and the non-IETs on general and culturally responsive pedagogy items.

IETs versus Non-IETs: General Pedagogy

Of the 40 items on the survey, there were 18 general pedagogy items. The overall mean of the IETs (n = 13) on general pedagogy items (18) was 8.25 (SD = 0.85) and Non-IETs (n = 63) was 8.03 (SD = 1.05). Levene’s test for un-equal variances showed that the variances were not signiﬁ cantly diﬀ erent,

F(74) = 0.269, p = .606. The results of the t test, t(74) = 0.718, p = .475, showed

that there were no statistically signifi cant diff erences between the subgroups. Hence, IETs and non-IETs reported no statistically signifi cant diff erences in their confi dence to implement general pedagogy in the classroom.

Table 4

IETs versus Non-IETs’ Self-Efﬁ cacy on General Pedagogy (GP) Items

IET 13 8.25 0.85 0.24

Non-IET 63 8.03 1.05 0.13

IETs versus Non-IETs: Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

Of the 40 items on the survey, there were 22 culturally responsive pedagogy items. The overall mean of the IETs (n = 13) on culturally responsive peda-gogy items (22) was 7.43 (SD = 0.81) and the non-IETs (n = 63) was 6.30 (SD = 1.70). Levene’s test for unequal variances found that the variances were sig-nifi cantly diff erent, F(74) = 9.334, p = .003. The result of the t test showed that there is a statistically signifi cant diff erence between IETs and non-IETs’ self-effi cacy perceptions on items of culturally responsive pedagogy, t(74) = 3.622,

(12)

p = .001. Hence, compared with non-IETs, IETs reported higher conﬁ dence in

their ability to implement culturally responsive pedagogy.

Table 5

IETs versus Non-IETs’ Self-Efﬁ cacy on Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) Items

IET 13 7.43 0.81 0.22

Non-IET 63 6.30 1.70 0.21

Discussion

We discuss the fi ndings based on the three research questions posed earlier. Both IETs and non-IETs reported a high self-effi cacy in their overall ability to teach in diverse classrooms (M = 7.20; SD = 1.07). Findings show that there are no statistically signifi cant diff erences between the two groups in terms of their overall self-effi cacy. The three highest rated survey items were item 10, which read “I use a variety of teaching methods such as visual aids”; item 8, which read “I build a sense of trust in my students”; and item 28, which read “I help students feel like important members of the classroom.” In contrast, the lowest rated items were item 18, which read “I design my classroom envi-ronment using displays that refl ect a variety of cultures”; item 16, which read “I teach students about their cultures’ contributions to fi elds such as science if content and context permit”; and item 17, which read “I greet ELLs with a phrase in their L1 if I am able to.” Siwatu (2007) mentioned the importance of item-specifi c responses in addition to the overall global score on self-effi cacy measures. In fact, he posits that global self-effi cacy scores mask the particu-lar areas in which participants have low effi cacy, which need to be targeted by appropriate stakeholders such as teacher education programs or school boards. These fi ndings clearly point out that teachers have low self-effi cacy on pedagogical practices that are directly related to teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students. The highest rated survey items are more gen-eral in nature and do not quite deal with issues of diversity directly. These fi ndings are in alignment with previous research that shows that culturally responsive pedagogy has been discussed extensively within research com-munities, but the practical aspect of the theory does not eff ectively reach the practitioners (Bou e, Kelly-Jackson, & Johnson, 2010). Hence, teachers’ low self-effi cacy on these items shows that they may be unsure of how to enact these practices in the classroom.

When looking closer at diff erences between teachers’ perception of their effi cacy for general pedagogy and culturally responsive pedagogy, both IETs and non-IETs report higher confi dence in their ability to implement general pedagogy as opposed to culturally responsive pedagogy. The statistically signifi cant diff erence between teaching practices of general pedagogy and

(13)

culturally responsive pedagogy in this study supports the theoretical under-standing concerning the nature of self-effi cacy beliefs, which indicates that general beliefs of self-effi cacy do not generate self-effi cacy beliefs in specifi c tasks (Bandura, 1997). Teachers had a signifi cantly higher sense of effi cacy on general pedagogical practices compared with culturally responsive peda-gogical practices. This fi nding is not surprising given that previous studies have reported that well-intentioned teachers lack the expertise to address the needs of ELLs in multilingual classrooms in Ontario (Webster & Valeo, 2011). Knoblauch and Hoy (2008) have stated that teachers’ self-effi cacy has a fundamental infl uence on pedagogical practices. Teachers in this study are more likely to enact the general pedagogical practices for which they felt highly effi cacious rather than the culturally responsive practices regardless of the proportion of ELLs in their classrooms. Bandura (1997) stated that not only are individuals likely to enact their beliefs when they feel highly self-effi cacious about them but they will put forth a more active eff ort in those activities. Hence, it is possible that as a result of their relatively low effi cacy on pedagogical practices dealing directly with diversity (compared with general pedagogy), teachers do not generally adopt culturally responsive teaching practices in their classrooms. Even if they do, they may not expend a large amount of eff ort in incorporating more inclusive teaching practices in the classroom. In their study of six kindergarten teachers’ perceptions regard-ing providregard-ing culturally responsive education in their classrooms, Alaca and Pyle (2018) found that while mostly all teachers believed in affi rming their students’ backgrounds in their teaching, only a few reported implementing specifi c practices regularly in their teaching. This is also true in the case of other participants. In her study examining interactions between secondary ELLs engaged in math peer tutoring sessions, Cardimona (2018) states that most teachers of mathematics have minimal or no training for working with ELLs.

These fi ndings are also in accordance with previous research showing a lack of preparedness on the part of the teachers to teach in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms (e.g., Lucas, Villegas, & Martin, 2015). Pro-ponents of culturally responsive pedagogy including Gay (2000) have stated that general pedagogy serves the needs of mainstream students and cultur-ally responsive pedagogy serves the needs of ELLs. Coelho (personal com-munication, author 2, 2005) argues that instruction geared to suit the needs of ELLs is simply “good pedagogy.” Evidently, these fi ndings reiterate that cur-riculum, instruction, and pedagogy are largely geared toward students who belong to the mainstream culture of the society (Gay, 2000; Coelho, 2012). Mensah (2011) pointed out that for students to learn in culturally relevant ways, it is important that their teachers fi rst learn and understand the prin-ciples of culturally responsive pedagogy themselves so that they can teach appropriately. Culturally responsive pedagogy advocates have mentioned that student failure is a ached to the teacher (Collier, 2005). This helps us

(14)

understand that if ELLs belonging to diverse cultural and linguistic groups are underperforming, one possible way to help them succeed in their academic work would be to provide them with appropriate culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy.

Finally, while IETs and non-IETs report no signifi cant diff erence in their ability to implement general pedagogy, IETs report higher confi dence in their ability to implement culturally responsive pedagogy. Considering that the knowledge of additional languages other than English was a prevalent factor among IETs in this study and that culturally responsive teaching prac-tices take ELLs’ languages into account, the results are in alignment with previous research. A study by Coady, Harper, & De Jong (2011) stressed that certain background characteristics can have an impact on teacher prepared-ness in terms of teaching ELLs and found that “LOTE [language(s) other than English] profi ciency” was a particularly signifi cant variable that had a positive correlation with teacher preparedness for teaching ELLs. In their study, García-Nevarez, Staff ord, and Arias (2005) also found that Spanish-speaking Latino teachers had more positive a itudes toward using ELLs’ L1 in the classroom than non-Latino teachers who did not speak Spanish. It is also possible that IETs reported higher self-effi cacy as a result of the empathy and understanding that they may feel for ELLs due to similar background experiences even though higher empathy does not necessarily translate into appropriate pedagogical practices (Faez, 2012a). Whatever the reason, IETs reported higher self-effi cacy for providing culturally responsive pedagogy in this study and, hence, the current study supports calls for diversifying the teaching force.

Conclusion

Regardless of our sincere eff ort to conduct this investigation and examine the self-effi cacy perceptions of IETs in relation to non-IETs, there are a num-ber of limitations of this study. First, this study relied on self-perceptions of self-effi cacy of IETs and non-IETs, and self-reports can be viewed to be unreliable (Trofi movich Isaacs, Kennedy, Saito, & Crowther, 2016) in spite of Bandura’s (1995) emphasis on the signifi cance of one’s confi dence in their ability. Second, the number of non-IETs is much larger than the number of IETs in this study. This small sample size refl ects the small number of IETs employed in the teaching profession, and our diffi culty in recruiting a larger number of IETs did not come as a surprise due to the small pool of practicing IETs in the profession. Consequently, the results of this study must be comprehended with this in mind. Third, the defi nition used to identify IETs can be viewed as subjective, and there is a wide within-group variation in both IETs and non-IETs. Hence, any grouping can be perceived to be problematic because these variations cannot be captured in such groupings and labelling. However, it is important to see how IETs perform as a group because they are consistently

(15)

labelled in social contexts, and their contributions are undermined. It is also important to bear in mind that the IETs in this study were practicing teachers with secure employment and, hence, may be diﬀ erent from IETs in preservice programs (e.g., Faez, 2010, 2012a).

Regardless of the limitations, results from this study highlight a number of important fi ndings. Both IETs and non-IETs report an overall high self-effi cacy to teach in diverse classrooms. No statistically signifi cant diff erences were found between the two groups. Both groups reported a much higher self-effi cacy on items of general pedagogy as opposed to culturally respon-sive pedagogy with statistically signifi cant diff erences. In addition, while no statistically signifi cant diff erences were found between both groups on general pedagogy, IETs reported a signifi cantly higher self-effi cacy on culturally responsive items than non-IETs. Given the fi ndings of this study, school boards should be more open and welcoming toward recruiting IETs as they not only diversify the teaching force and address issues related to be er student representation but also reported a stronger self-effi cacy for provid-ing culturally responsive pedagogy than non-IETs in this study. While the fi ndings reported in this investigation were based on a study conducted in Ontario, the issues can be similar in other linguistically and culturally diverse contexts.

Notes

1. The Ontario Ministry of Education (2007) uses the term English Language

Learner (ELL) to refer to students whose ﬁ rst language is not English or is

a variety of English signiﬁ cantly diﬀ erent from the variety used in Ontario classrooms. ELLs may be born in Canada or may have arrived from other countries.

2. According to the Ontario College of Teachers, Internationally Educated Teachers (IETs) are those “who have completed a teacher education pro-gram outside of Ontario” (Ontario College of Teachers, 2016, p. 2). We deﬁ ne IETs more broadly to include teachers who have studied for an extended period of time outside Canada.

3. Kachru (1992) developed the three-circle model of World Englishes, which remains a widely used framework for grouping the diﬀ erent varieties of English throughout the world.

The Authors

Mithila Vidwans, PhD, completed her graduate education from Western University. Her research interests include

corpus linguistics and teacher education.

Farahnaz Faez, PhD, is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Western Ontario,

Canada. She has taught and supervised ESL/EFL and TESOL programs for several years. Her research interests include second/foreign language pedagogy and language teacher education with a focus on teacher efﬁ cacy, teacher cognition, teacher proﬁ ciency, and non-native English speaking teachers.

(16)

References

Akbari, R., & Allvar, N. K. (2010). L2 Teacher characteristics as predictors of students’ academic achievement. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 13(4), 1–22.

Alaca, B., & Pyle, A. (2018). Kindergarten teachers’ perspectives on culturally responsive educa-tion. Canadian Journal of Education, 41(3), 753–782.

Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a diﬀ erence: Teachers’ sense of eﬃ cacy and student achieve-ment. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-eﬃ cacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological

Review, 84(2), 191–215. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective eﬃ cacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-eﬃ cacy in changing societies (pp. 1–45). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527692.003

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-eﬃ cacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and

Company.

Bascia, N. (1996). Teacher leadership: Contending with adversity. Canadian Journal of Education,

21(2), 155–169.

Beynon, J., Ilieva, R., & Dichupa, M. (2004). Re-credentialling experiences of immigrant teach-ers: Negotiating institutional structures, professional identities and pedagogy. Teachers and

Teaching, 10(4), 429–444. h ps://doi.org/10.1080/1354060042000224160

Block, L. A. (2012). Re-positioning: Internationally educated teachers in Manitoba school com-munities. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(3), 85–100.

Bolshakova, V. L. J., Johnson, C. C., & Czerniak, C. M. (2011). “It depends on what science teacher you got”: Urban science self-eﬃ cacy from teacher and student voices. Cultural Studies of

Science Education, 6(4), 961–997.

Bou e, G., Kelly-Jackson, C., & Johnson, G. L. (2010). Culturally relevant teaching in science classrooms: Addressing academic achievement, cultural competence, and critical conscious-ness. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 12(2), 1–20. h p://dx.doi.org/10.18251/ ijme.v12i2.343

Cardimona, K. (2018). Diﬀ erentiating mathematics instruction for secondary-level English language learners in the mainstream classroom. TESOL Journal, 9(1), 17–57. h ps://doi. org/10.1002/tesj.303

Cho, C. L. (2011). Qualifying as a teacher: Investigating immigrant teacher candidates’ counter stories of

replication and resistance (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses database. (NR80550)

Coady, M., Harper, C., & De Jong, E. (2011). From preservice to practice: Mainstream elementary teacher beliefs of preparation and eﬃ cacy with ELLs in the state of Florida. Bilingual Research

Journal, 34(2), 223–239. h ps://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2011.597823

Coelho, E. (2012). Language and learning in multilingual classrooms: A practical approach. Bristol: Multilingual Ma ers.

Collier, M. D. (2005). An ethic of caring: The fuel for high teacher eﬃ cacy. The Urban Review,

37(4), 351–358.

Deters, P. K. (2009). Identity, agency, and the acquisition of professional language and culture: The

case of internationally educated teachers and college professors in Ontario. (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

Faez, F. (2010). Linguistic and cultural adaptation of internationally educated teacher candidates.

Canadian Journal for Educational Administration and Policy [Special Issue], 100, 1–20.

Faez, F. (2011). Reconceptualizing the native/nonnative speaker dichotomy. Journal of Language,

Identity and Education, 10(4), 231–249.

Faez, F. (2012a). Diverse teachers for diverse students: Internationally educated and Canadian-born teachers’ preparedness to teach English language learners. Canadian Journal of Education,

(17)

64 MITHILA VIDWANS & FARAHNAZ FAEZ Faez, F. (2012b). Linguistic identities and experiences of generation 1.5 teachers: Race ma ers.

TESL Canada Journal, 29(6), 124–141.

Fehr, M. C. (2010). Unlikely teachers: Redeﬁ ning the best and the brightest. Multicultural

Education & Technology Journal, 4(4), 272–281.

García-Nevarez, A. G., Staﬀ ord, M. E., & Arias, B. (2005). Arizona elementary teachers’ a itudes toward English language learners and the use of Spanish in classroom instruction. Bilingual

Research Journal, 29(2), 295–317. h ps://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2005.10162837

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116. h ps://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003

Gay, G. (2015). Teachers’ beliefs about cultural diversity: Problems and possibilities. In H. Fives & M. G. Gill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 436–452). New York, NY: Routledge.

Janzen, M., & Cranston, J. (2016). The challenges of implementing a diversity admission policy.

University Aﬀ airs. Retrieved from h p://www.universityaﬀ airs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/

challenges-implementing-diversity-admissions-policy/

Kachru, B. B. (1992). World Englishes: Approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching, 25, 1–14.

Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2018). Challenges faced by NNESTs. In John I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL

encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 1–7). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley

& Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0010

Knoblauch, D., & Hoy, W. A. (2008). “Maybe I can teach those kids”: The inﬂ uence of contextual factors on student teachers’ eﬃ cacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 166–179. Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Fighting for our lives: Preparing teachers to teach African

American students. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 206–214. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022487100051003008

Levin, B. B. (2015). The development of teachers’ beliefs. In H. Fives & M. G. Gill (Eds.),

International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 48–65). New York, NY: Routledge.

Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Martin, A. D. (2015). Teachers’ beliefs about English language learners. In H. Fives & M. G. Gill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 453–474). New York, NY: Routledge.

Marom, L. (2017). Mapping the ﬁ eld: Examining the recertiﬁ cation of internationally educated teachers. Canadian Journal of Education, 40(3), 157–190.

Mensah, F. M. (2011). A case for culturally relevant teaching in science education and lessons learned for teacher education. The Journal of Negro Education, 80(3), 296–309.

Moussu, L. (2018a). Shortcomings of NESTs and NNESTs. In John I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL

encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 1–6). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley

& Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0044

Moussu, L. (2018b). Strengths of NESTs and NNESTs. In John I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL

ency-clopedia of English Language Teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 1–7). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley &

Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0813

Mojavezi, A., & Tamiz, M. P. (2012). The impact of teacher self-eﬃ cacy on the students’ moti-vation and achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(3), 483–491. h ps://doi. org/10.29333/ejmste/89579

Muijs, D. (2011). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ontario College of Teachers. (2016). Career map for internationally educated teachers. Toronto, Ontario: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007). English language learners: ESL and ELD programs and service:

Policies and procedures for Ontario elementary and secondary schools, Kindergarten to Grade 12.

(18)

Phillion, J. (2003). Obstacles to accessing the teaching profession for immigrant women.

Multicultural Education, 11(1), 41–45.

Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher eﬃ cacy and the eﬀ ect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian

Journal of Education, 17(1), 51–65. h p://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1495395

Rushton, S. P. (2000). Student teacher eﬃ cacy in inner-city schools. The Urban Review, 32(4), 365–383. h ps://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026459809392

Ryan, J., Pollock, K., & Antonelli, F. (2009). Teacher diversity in Canada: Leaky pipelines, bo le-necks, and glass ceilings. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(3), 591–617.

Santoro, N. (2008). “Outsiders” and “others”: “Diﬀ erent” teachers teaching in culturally diverse classrooms. Teachers and Teaching, 13(1), 81–97. h ps://doi.org/10.1080/13540600601106104 Selvi, A. F. (2018). Myths and misconceptions about the NNEST movement and research. In

John I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 1–8). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0811 Schmidt, C. (2010a). Introduction: Moving from the personal to the political in IET scholarship.

Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 100, 1–4. Retrieved from h ps://

journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjeap/issue/view/2882

Schmidt, C. (2010b). Systemic discrimination as a barrier for immigrant teachers. Diaspora,

Indigenous, and Minority Education, 4(4), 235–252. h ps://doi.org/10.1080/15595692.2010.513

246

Schmidt, C. (2016). Herculean eﬀ orts are not enough: Diversifying the teaching profession and the need for systemic change. Intercultural Education, 26(6), 584–592. h ps://doi.org/10.1080/ 14675986.2015.1109776

Schmidt, C., & Gagné, A. (2015). Internationally educated teacher candidates in Canadian faculties of education: When diversity ≠ equity. In T. Falkenberg (Ed.), Handbook of Canadian

research in initial teacher education (pp. 295–311). O awa, ON: Canadian Association for

Teacher Education.

Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher eﬃ cacy to implement inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), 12–21. h ps://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1471-3802.2011.01200.x

Siwatu, K. O. (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-eﬃ cacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1086–1101. h ps://doi.org /10.1080/00220671.2010.487081

Siwatu, K. O. (2011a). Preservice teachers’ sense of preparedness and self-eﬃ cacy to teach in America’s urban and suburban schools: Does context ma er? Teaching and Teacher Education,

27(2), 357–365. h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.004

Siwatu, K. O. (2011b). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-eﬃ cacy-forming experiences: A mixed-methods study. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(5), 360–369. h ps://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.4870

Sleeter, C. E., & Milner, H. R. (2011). Researching successful eﬀ orts in teacher education to diversify teachers. In A. F. Ball & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 81–104). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Li leﬁ eld.

Solomon, R. P. (1997). Race, role modeling and representation in teacher education and teaching.

Canadian Journal of Education, 22(4), 395–410.

Statistics Canada. (2017). Immigration and diversity: Population projections for Canada and its regions (91-551-X). Retrieved from http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/olc-cel/olc.action?objId=91-551-X&objType=2&lang=en&limit=0

Swanson, K. W. (2010). Delightfully diﬃ cult work: Transformation for teaching and learning. V. Wang (Ed.). Encyclopedia of information communication technologies and adult education

inte-gration (pp. 169–183). Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.

Swanson, K. W. (2014). Research and relationships. In K. W. Swanson (Ed.), Multidisciplinary

collaboration. The scholarship of teaching and learning. New directions in teaching and learning

(19)

66 MITHILA VIDWANS & FARAHNAZ FAEZ Troﬁ movich, P., Isaacs, T., Kennedy, S., Saito, K., & Crowther, D. (2016). Flawed self-assessment:

Investigating self- and other perception of second language speech. Bilingualism: Language

and Cognition, 19(1), 122–140. h ps://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000832

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher eﬃ cacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curric-ulum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–32. h ps://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053001003 Villegas, A., & Lucas, T. (2004). Diversifying the teacher workforce: A retrospective and pro-spective analysis. In M. Smylie & D. Mire ky (Eds.), Developing the teacher workforce (Series:

Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Vol. 103; pp. 70–104). Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Walsh, S. C., Brigham, S. M., & Wang, Y. (2011). Internationally educated female teachers in the neoliberal context: Their labour market and teacher certiﬁ cation experiences in Canada.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3), 657–665. h p://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.11.004

Webster, N. L., & Valeo, A. (2011). Teacher preparedness for a changing demographic of language learners. TESL Canada Journal, 28(2), 105–128. h ps://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v28i2.1075 Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Spero R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher eﬃ cacy during the early years of

teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 343–356. Zietsma, D. (2010). Immigrants working in regulated occupations (Catalogue No. 75-001-X). O awa,

ON: Statistics Canada. Retrieved from h p://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2010102/ article/11121-eng.htm

Appendix: Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Eﬃ

cacy (CRTSE)

Scale:

Please judge your capabilities to engage in the following teaching practices on a scale of 0 meaning

no feelings of self-efﬁ cacy to 10 meaning high feelings of self-efﬁ cacy.

1. I adapt instruction to meet the needs of my students.

2. I obtain information about my students’ academic strengths and weaknesses. 3. I determine whether my students like to work alone or in a group.

4. I identify ways that the school culture (e.g., values, norms and practices) is different from my students’ home culture.

5. I implement strategies to minimize the effects of the mismatch between my students’ home culture and the school culture.

6. I assess student learning using various types of assessments. 7. I obtain information about my students’ home life.

8. I build a sense of trust in my students. 9. I establish positive home-school relations.

10. I use a variety of teaching methods such as visual aids.

11. I develop a community of learners when my class consists of students from diverse backgrounds. 12. I use my students’ cultural background to help make learning meaningful.

13. I use my students’ prior knowledge of subjects such as science to help them make sense of new information. 14. I identify ways how students communicate at home may differ from the school norms.

15. I obtain information about my students’ cultural background such as their L1 (ﬁ rst language) or mother tongue.

(20)

16. I teach students about their cultures’ contributions to ﬁ elds such as science if content and context permit. 17. I greet English Language Learners with a phrase in their native language if I am able to.

18. I design a classroom environment using displays that reﬂ ect a variety of cultures. 19. I develop a personal relationship with my students.

20. I identify ways that standardized tests such as the EQAO (Education Quality and Accountability Ofﬁ ce) may be biased toward linguistically diverse students.

21. I communicate with parents regarding their child’s educational progress.

22. I structure parent-teacher conferences so that the meeting is not intimidating for parents. 23. I help students to develop positive relationships with their classmates.

24. I revise instructional material to include a better representation of cultural groups.

25. I critically examine the curriculum to determine whether it reinforces negative cultural stereotypes. 26. I model classroom tasks to enhance English Language Learners’ understanding.

27. I communicate with the parents of English Language Learners regarding their child’s achievement. 28. I help students feel like important members of the classroom.

29. I identify ways that standardized tests such as the EQAO may be biased toward culturally diverse students. 30. I use a learning preference inventory to gather data about how my students like to learn (e.g., are they

visual, linear, kinesthetic, or auditory learners?).

31. I use examples that are familiar to students from diverse cultural backgrounds. 32. I obtain information regarding my students’ academic interests.

33. I use the interests of my students to make learning meaningful for them.

34. I implement cooperative learning activities for those students who like to work in groups.

35. I am mindful when using Canadian cultural metaphors as analogies to teach subject-speciﬁ c concepts (e.g., scientiﬁ c or mathematical).

36. I understand that English Language Learners’ cultural beliefs regarding certain subject-speciﬁ c concepts may differ from my own.

37. I give students the opportunity to improve their proﬁ ciency in English in my class.

38. I am mindful when using illustrations or metaphors from mainstream popular culture (including movies, tele-vision and music) as analogies to teach scientiﬁ c or mathematical concepts.

39. I repeat content-speciﬁ c terms and phrases multiple times so that English Language Learners can compre-hend them better.

40. I encourage English Language Learners to use their fi rst language (L1) to defi ne and understand content-specifi c terms and phrases.